Says Jeff Jarvis, because most people who blog and use Facebook and the like "don’t think they are doing anything remotely connected to journalism."

The most absurd part of it is the way the FTC is trying to make it okay by assuring us that they will be selective in deciding which writers on the internet to pursue. That is, they've deliberately made a grotesquely overbroad rule, enough to sweep so many of us into technical violations, but we're supposed to feel soothed by the knowledge that government agents will decide who among us gets fined. No, no, no. Overbreath itself is a problem. And so is selective enforcement.

Bloggers are a little inconsistent as a group, aren't they?On the left, they are complaining because Schumer doesn't want bloggers covered by journalism shield laws.It seems to me bloggers are either the guys at Denny's or they follow journalism rules.

MayBee: But these aren't journalism rules. These rules apply to bloggers and social media users, not big corporate journalism. When was the last time you read an MSM book review or movie review where the review has a freebie disclaimer? Seems to me that I've seen such a disclaimer far more often on blogs than in newspapers and magazines.

Combine the new FTC guidelines with the feds' recent crafting of a shield law which doesn't include bloggers and it starts to look like the govt is creating a two-tiered First Amendment: one for the professionals, and one for us schlubs. The FEC is not too happy with free speech from citizens either.

They are just dipping their toe into the water to see how much censorship and control they can start enforcing over the internet and then to other areas of communication that don't kow tow to the Won's aura.

The FTC will next go after talk radio to try and silence critics of this administration. This is Marxism 101. And once the government has used the so called "Intellectuals" to help them gain firm hold over the middle class, the "Intellectuals" will be the next group to get gobbled up. I saw a re-declaration of independence at http://www.TheseSelfEvidentTruths.com yesterday. I am beginning to think something like this will really be needed.

Given the blogosphere's tendency to fisk other sites, look for conflicts, isn't the potential for abuse pretty low?

How I feel about the FTC's decision aside, I don't think the blogosphere's tendency to fisk other sites does the reader of any one particular site any good.We want the WaPo and NYTs to write their corrections prominently on their own sites and in their own papers, right? We don't consider things corrected just because someone somewhere else pointed out their flaws.

So, if bloggers need to "follow journalism rules," just who makes these rules. Are they government rules? The government now decides what is legitimate and what isn't? This sounds like a rule that is intended to allow the government to harass whoever it feels like harassing on any given day.

This one is a pretty clear dividing line: those in favor of these 'rules' are opposed to free speech. They favor regulated speech, which is the opposite of free speech. To paraphrase Ms. Garofolo, this is statism straight up.

"don’t think they are doing anything remotely connected to journalism."

This just pisses me off. Journalists aren't special nor do they deserve any special protections. Free speech is free speech. Congress shall make no law doesn't carve out some special protections for high and mighty journalists. The entire distinction is utter bullshit.

(The FTC is also mostly bullshit--a big chunk of their powers aren't remotely constitutional. But then again neither is most campaign regulation, but until we have a supreme court with any actual balls, it won't make a hill of beans difference.)

The government hired 300 people to administer the cash for clunkers program. Last I heard that number got up to 900. Does anyone think they let go those 900 people after the program's end? Additionally, the program jump started our car manufacturer's business. But not as much as it jump started foreign car manufacturer's businesses.

This is just like that. More people on the government payroll, or dole, if you prefer, and those "foreigners" will most likely benefit the most.

Accumulating power and transferring wealth is a dirty business, but someone's got to do it. Right?

Also I don't see any real investigative journalism anymore in the MSM, how can they even pretend to be called that? Of course it's par for the course that the lefties will come on here and say that MSM-journalists are holy and bloggers are not.

Does this mean that lawyers will be needed by bloggers? That is good news. We can write the super fast flashing disclaimers in the corner of the Web-page. For Althouse we can write warnings that although this blog is a Wisconsin Law School cheese blog, that the Professor also has her own strong opinions and a quick wit. That should warn people not to be tricked into eating Wisconsin cheese just because they have been entertained.

"If each of us has an FTC agent reading our blog [heck that would double my blog's traffic!], think of all the people we can put back to work!"

That is an imporant part... when I was younger one argument I had for paranoids worried the government was listening was they didn't employee enough people to bother.... ahem... Since then its MORE than doubled in size...

The FCC and other bureaucracies are ultimately going to reap what they sow - a violent new American Revolution.

Does this Democratic Administration think it can continue to arrogantly DESTROY our economy and lives and lives of our children and grandchildren. I say "hang" tyrants and they soon will get the message.

the government is getting ready to put a journalism shield law in place. There is certainly some rule-making involved in that.

That's why "government shield laws" are so dangerous. They make the media dependent on the government for its very existence. This is the sort of idea the Soviet Union might have dreamed up. Who really thinks it's a good idea if the state can yank a journalists "license" for any reason?

OT, yesterday, the Louisiana AG reported the ACORN embezzlement 9by one of the founders) was $5 Million versus the previously reported $1 Million! Do you think the MSM will investigate this? Do you wonder when these poor organization cry poor mouth if they are lying?

I'm trying to imagine why the Federal Trade Commission would think that bloggers, 99% of whom do it for a hobby without remuneration, are of such impact on interstate trade that they need watching. All I can come up with is paranoid conspiracy theories.

Journalists have developed an ethical code that bloggers have not. I would prefer self-regulation and peer-regulation to government regulation.

You have to be kidding, right?

The only ethical code that I know of when it comes to mainstream journalism is that you have to slant the story as far to the left as they can. If it benefits the right, then bury it. If it involves, corruption, note the party if a Republican, and ignore, if not (and bury it in the middle of the paper).

Not covering important stories? - ok, as long as the story would have benefitted the right. Faking data or photos? Fine if it hurts the right, but not if it harms the left, and, in particular, President Obama.

So, yes, MSM journalism has an ethics code. Arguably though, it isn't an ethics code that benefits the country. But it does benefit the President and the Democratic Party, and that, I suspect, is all that is important.

Come back to us about self-policing when we can see some liberals heads on pikes for failing to speak truth to power (i.e. for calling out the rampant corruption in the Democratic party, Congress, and Administration).

WV: stasi - somehow seems fitting here (The Stasi were the East German State Police - Ministerium für Staatssicherheit).

Are we surprised? Did you expect people who possess no common affiliation, with the only factor shared being access to the internet, would behave as a monolith? Why is the fact that they disagree on fundamental issues any sort of cudgel to use against the argument that the FTC should not be investigating the truthfulness of claims made by private citizens?

BTW: There should be no shield laws, period. The government has no right to decide who is a journalist, and who is not. The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. By that, you should not be able to be prosecuted by the federal government for anything you publish. Crimes committed in securing such information should not be exempt from the law. By including criminal protections as a special exemption for privileged persons, freedom of the press is undermined, not strengthened.

The logical dissonence of using promised selective enforcement as a selling point is priceless.

"When was the last time you read an MSM book review or movie review where the review has a freebie disclaimer?"

A more relevent question, Brian, would be when was the last time you read a "news article" that was really just a dressed up press release from a company ro special interest group without a clear disclaimer? The MSM is so notorious for this lazy slight-of-hand that it is common accepted practice these days.

Why is the fact that they disagree on fundamental issues any sort of cudgel to use against the argument that the FTC should not be investigating the truthfulness of claims made by private citizens?

Sorry, I didn't mean to use it as a cudgel, but just a point of discussion. I completely agree that bloggers (for the most part) are just individuals, acting individually. But that's also why I chuckle at the idea that there are blogging ethics or a way blogs are supposed to be.

BTW: There should be no shield laws, period. The government has no right to decide who is a journalist, and who is not.

I completely agree with your second paragraph.But keep in mind there are blogs- some with political influence- who are pushing for a shield law that covers them.We'll see what happens.

Yeah, 'cause without the FTC, how would I ever tell which blogs to trust for product recommendations? Why, ordinary citizens could be forced to use their own judgment!

This is just an excuse to setup the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary to monitor blogs. Next, they'll be cataloging the words you write in favor of each candidate. More than so many words, and its an in-kind contribution. Outrageous? Yes. Blatantly unconstitutional? Yes. Plausible? Just as yes.

Keith Olberman will no doubt have a Special Comment about how no one person should get to say too much in favor of their cooky ideas.

Is a blanket disclosure enough for the FTC, or do you have to do the disclosure within the particular post that discusses a freebie product? If a blanket disclosure can do the trick, blogs should coordinate to use standard language that meets the letter of the FTC regulation, but also attacks the FTC for stupidity and hypocrisy. The statement could be in the top corner of all participating blogs. A first draft:

"I have not been compensated by the Ad Council for celebrating diversity. I have not been hired by the National Endowment for the Arts to write tear-jerking or bile raising anecdotes that promote progressive causes. I may occasionally get free products and mention them here, but I know that with my readers, credibility is life."

Yep. A major news organization would never put out a historical document on a candidates military record which was clearly and obviously produced in microsoft word. Only bloggers do that sort of thing, and it's fortunate we have the MSM to set up straight.

And last I checked, the Constitution didn't say "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech of anyone with a high standard of ethics as determined by a board officers populated by executive appointment"